3 ms·

The plan Elon has set out is for the transportation to mars- and its very impressive. He hasn't made any attempt at a colonization plan, but at least we've got

The plan Elon has set out is for the transportation to mars- and its very impressive. He hasn't made any attempt at a colonization plan, but at least we've got an idea how the transportation might work. Colonization would be a much much harder problem. Every person you send to mars needs food, water, air, heat, and shelter from day one. If they're going to maintain their own habitat then you're talking about mining equipment, metal foundries, glass making, rubber for gaskets, fertilizer, etc etc etc. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it might take a significant portion of the world GDP to get that set up for a million colonists- a million dollars per colonist seems very low and that's a trillion dollars altogether.

averagewall 9y ago
So we can send and support a million people on Mars for the cost of the Iraq war? Obviously affordable for a government or a large enough group of motivated people. It's not going to bankrupt the world by any stretch. Perhaps there are 1 million millionaires in the world willing to pay their own way. Back in the days of colonizing countries, people did that. Even though their destinations were closer and more habitable, they also had more primitive technology so it was still a massive challenge by today's standards. No fridges, cars, or radio communications. Travel time was several months between countries compared to about a year to get to Mars. I wouldn't say it's obviously unachievable at all.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > Even though their destinations were closer and more habitable I actually (genuinely) wonder about that those two. Distance isn't the right metric - it's difficulty of making the journey. Ocean travel is taken for granted these days. In the past it was a lot more difficult and dangerous. How did those difficulties then compare to interplanetary travel today? (I'm genuinely asking). And similar applies to how habitable the destination was. I remember reading about the initial English colonies in America, and all difficulties they had with things like trying to grow crops. How do those difficulties compare to the difficulties we'd face for Mars? (again, I don't know the answer, but I'm curious as to what it might be).

averagewall 9y ago

So we can send and support a million people on Mars for the cost of the Iraq war? Obviously affordable for a government or a large enough group of motivated people. It's not going to bankrupt the world by any stretch. Perhaps there are 1 million millionaires in the world willing to pay their own way. Back in the days of colonizing countries, people did that. Even though their destinations were closer and more habitable, they also had more primitive technology so it was still a massive challenge by today's standards. No fridges, cars, or radio communications. Travel time was several months between countries compared to about a year to get to Mars. I wouldn't say it's obviously unachievable at all.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> Even though their destinations were closer and more habitable I actually (genuinely) wonder about that those two. Distance isn't the right metric - it's difficulty of making the journey. Ocean travel is taken for granted these days. In the past it was a lot more difficult and dangerous. How did those difficulties then compare to interplanetary travel today? (I'm genuinely asking). And similar applies to how habitable the destination was. I remember reading about the initial English colonies in America, and all difficulties they had with things like trying to grow crops. How do those difficulties compare to the difficulties we'd face for Mars? (again, I don't know the answer, but I'm curious as to what it might be).